Ranking system outside ACBLLand?

[Vilgan]

So like.. I keep reading comments in the bridge bulletin about how a new system is being considered or they are trying to rework the masterpoint system.

 

When I was in France, earning points was fairly similar (I remember earning a lot more though for winning). However, 10% of the points went away every year. They also had a huge rank system (like 20 ranks I think) going from 1♣ to 4NT (or maybe from 4 NT to 1♣). I don't remember if their ranking was 100% point based... but I thought there was more to it.

 

For those with experience with other ranking systems, what do other countries do?

 

Really would love to see a system that was not purely attendance based in the ACBL someday.

[Free]

In Belgium there has been a similar idea, but it didn't get off the ground. Perhaps the fact that the French community came with the idea but forgot to update the point count of every Flemish member (dunno if they updated any member's score actually) helped in that respect.

 

The basic idea was to make sure that inactive players would drop down the ladder by taking something like 10% of their MP's every year. To get some points, there were 3 ranks of points (I think it was: master, expert and club). According to the tournament, a rank was given, which meant that you could earn a lot of points in master events, while you'd never get a decent ranking with club events. Imo the system was ok, but it requires a lot of administration. And you should start with a clean sheet for everyone, because some players got millions of points to start with, while others got a few thousands. Good luck trying to catch the big guys :)

[Gerben42]

In the Netherlands, the best 5 MP results of each year are taken into account. This means basically yearly the 5 best results.

 

Then the rating contains the current year for 100%, last year 75%, then 50%, then 25%, rest 0%.

 

The top 20 looks like this:

 

1 dhr. H. Bertens 19854

2 dhr. A.G.M. Bakkeren 19164

3 dhr. B. Westra 17511

4 dhr. V.I. Ramondt 17409

5 dhr. J. Jansma 16886

6 dhr. B. Muller 16303

7 dhr. A.W.M. Verhees Jr. 15752

8 mw. B. Vriend 15546

9 mw. C.M.M. Arnolds 14986

10 dhr. S.C. de Wijs 14975

11 dhr. S. Drijver 13551

12 dhr. S. Brink 13481

13 mw. M.S. Michielsen 12021

14 dhr. M.H.J. Schollaardt 11281

15 dhr. R. van Prooijen 11171

16 mw. J. Pasman 11033

17 mw. J.A. Simons 10903

18 mw. M.T. Wortel 10296

19 dhr. G.J. Paulissen 9023

20 mw. W.I. van Zwol 8075

 

As all players with high rating have international experience, the method works well I think.

 

On the other hand, in the old-fashioned MP table we also have a well-known all-time leader who just celebrated his 80th birthday: 1966 World Pairs Champion Hans Kreijns.

[barmar]

The fact that the top 20 are all world class players doesn't tell you much (although if it contained some non-WC players that would indicate a problem). The top 20 list of ACBL masterpoints is also a Who's Who of North American bridge players, yet we all know that our system is quite flawed. It's hard to get to the tens of thousands of masterpoints without at least scratching in a bunch of Spingolds, Blue Ribbons, etc.

 

The true test of a ranking system is how it deals with the masses down below. The problem with the ACBL system is that it simply rewards longevity or attendance. If you play enough, and aren't completely hopeless, you eventually accumulate enough points that you're considered flight A. I've never made it past the first round of the 0-1500 mini-Spingold, but this year I'll have to compete in the 0-5000.

[TimG]

I've never made it past the first round of the 0-1500 mini-Spingold, but this year I'll have to compete in the 0-5000.

No, you could compete in the real thing. :)

[ArtK78]

The longer I play, the less that I find that the ACBL masterpoint system is flawed.

 

In my Unit, a list is published each year (around September or October) of all members who have over 1000 masterpoints. In scanning the list, I find that most of the players who I respect are listed in the top 20% of the list, and most of those in the top 20% of the list are players who I respect. There are some "old timers," but, as I have found on my way to becoming an "old timer," those players used to be quite strong.

 

There are also some newer players further down the list who I respect as good players who might not have had the opportunity to collect as many masterpoints as those of us who have been around for a while.

 

Of course, I also see names in the top 20% of the list who play often and well enough to accumulate a good many points, but who I know are mediocre players at best.

 

The bottom line is that the ACBL masterpoint system works well enough and really does not need any tinkering. Enough tinkering is done to the awards offered currently so that the list takes care of itself over time.

 

On the other hand, it doesn't really matter where one is on the list. Have you noticed that Charles Goren is not even listed in the top 500 list (deceased players are listed without a rank number in between living players who are ranked)? That is because his lifetime total was around 8000 masterpoints when he gave up playing in the early 70s. The masterpoint inflation of the 70s, 80s and 90s resulted in more than 500 living players passing his total. Does that mean that he is not respected as one of the greatest players and bridge personalities of all time? I think not.

 

I will have the pleasure of playing with David Treadwell once again this weekend. David is #26 on the all-time list with a total in excess of 25,000 masterpoints. While David is not regarded as one of the greats of the game, he is a fine player (even as he approaches his 96th birthday) and the teller of some of the worst jokes of all time. He is also a fascinating person. David has told me a number of stories about the early years of the game in addition to his professional life as an engineer with DuPont. David worked on the Manhattan Project during World War II and worked with some of the legendary figures in Physics, such as Enrico Fermi.

[3for3]

There actually is a fairly good rating system for the top players. Look at the Player of the Decade list.

 

Obviously, this list contains some of the better sponsors, even ahead of some of the top players, but if you ignore them, you do get a 'fairly' decent rating of the top players.

 

The reason this list 'works' is that everyone on it (at least at the top) has basically the same oppurtunity.

 

Is it perfect? Far from it. Is it reasonable? I'd say yes.

 

Danny

[barmar]

Yes, if you add a time adjustment to ACBL masterpoints, you get a much better guide. Simply dividing the number of masterpoints by how long the player has been an ACBL member is one crude way, although it penalizes people who took time off to raise families or work at other jobs that keep them away from the bridge table, while biasing towards pros and retirees who do little other than play bridge every day. Better would be dividing by the number of events or sessions played; unfortunately, ACBL doesn't keep records of entries, only masterpoints won in the events.

 

Player of the Decade and McKenney races do a better job because they just look at the most recent results, although you occasionally have players who decide to take off a year and do nothing but play bridge to win the McKenney.

[3for3]

If the ACBL were to try to do a sophisticated rating, they should have some 'batting average' like number. Calculate the average number of masterpoints awarded in each event, then see how you stand relative to average.

 

Average points won is better than total possible, for 2 reasons. One is that total possible makes it very difficult to do well in large fields. The other is that, right away, you could see how a player relates to average in the fields they compete in. Anything over 1.00 means the player is a better than average player at that level, so there would be no standards one would need to learn. Comparing to total possible would be difficult; who knows what a goo

 

You could have a seperate list by color of points; Platninum, Red/Gold, Silver and Black for the various levels. Obviously you would need a certain number of session and points won to qualify, just like in baseball, else a player who plays in and wins one event would have a distorted rating.

 

Danny

[mycroft]

I agree with the person who said it's not the name players that matter.

 

Everyone knows who the best 10% of the players in their area are, and strangely enough, they tend to be in the top 10% of MP holders. But who cares? They're name players, and you know how good they are without reference to MPs.

 

Where it matters is the 500 MP players that play like 1000 and the 1000 MP players that play like 100 - and bracketing and the partnership desk. Oh, and the no-longer-flight-A players (frequently a long way from flight A, due to age or illness) who still have to play in separate flight A events and get hammered all the time. Isn't so bad in fully Stratified events; they won't place, but at least they're no more beat up than the rest of the Cs.

 

Nobody knows who they are, so they have to work it out from MPs. Once you get outside your area, as well, MPs matter because they're the only rating you have.

 

People want rating schemes. I have no idea why. I know who's good and who isn't, and I try to be in the former category - or at least someone those that are in that category are willing to play with.

[awm]

The prevalence of bracketed KO events in ACBL regionals makes a good rating system a lot more valuable than it would've been years ago.

 

One of the great things about bridge, which I hear advertised over and over, is that anybody can play against the best players in the region. This is not true about most other sports or games.

 

But as the top players gravitate more and more towards KO events, this is not really true any more except at nationals. And because the rating system is rather poor, there is a large set of pretty good players who can't play against the best because they can't get into bracket one of the knockouts. Meanwhile we have bad players with a lot of points who want to avoid the knockout events, because they will be forced to play against the better teams and quickly eliminated.

[nige1]

The EBU has clever dual system which works well

• A cumulative master point system with local points for local events and national points for national events. This keeps players happy who can afford to play a lot as they gradually ascend the ranks over a life-time.
  
• A gold point system where only high positions in designated top events count and your ratings are aged. Recent successes count more than past glories. This rates top players and reflects current form.
  

[Guest Jlall]

Does the Netherlands count women's events in the MP system? The two should definitely be seperate.

[Vilgan]

There is an issue with there being a major discrepancy between different players with 2200 points. Some are solid A players, some could not defend/declare their way through a hand even if all 4 hands were visible to them. This was already mentioned though, so going to hit on the part that I really want to see improved.

 

Do you remember back when you were a brand new ACBL member and "Lifemaster" was a rank still to be achieved? For me at least, there was a lot of excitement as I rushed towards the goal. 25 gold? check. 25 red? check. 50 silver? check. 50 black? wee, now just need x number of points to hit the 300.

 

However, after hitting the lifemaster rank.. there is nothing. There is this empty chasm of meaningless attendance based ranks, before the final rank of "Grand Life Master". A rank many will never be able to win the prerequisite title for.

 

I think it'd be really cool to see some more of the ranks actually have some milestones other than just an attendance check. Or add new ranks which are totally independent, but have harder to acquire requirements.

 

For example:

Silver Life Master: Requires 50 gold, 100 silver, 2 platinum, 5 blue ribbon qualifications.

Gold Life Master: Requires 200 gold, 10 platinum, 1 regional pairs event win or bracket 1 win (2 session event only for pairs, side game doesn't count), 20 blue ribbon qualifications.

Diamond: 400 gold, 25 platinum, 3 regional pairs event wins (bracket 1 wins also count), 40 blue ribbon qualifications.

Emerald: whatever

Platinum: 100 platinum points, 80 blue ribbon qualifications, 8 regional pair event or bracket 1 wins.

 

The above is one example, below is what I consider a cooler idea. Basically additional achievements, that exist in parallel alongside the existing ranks:

 

ACBL Pairs Adept: 1 pairs event win in a sectional 1 session or regional 2 session event. Also: an overall finish in any open national pairs event also grants this rank.

ACBL Pairs Master: 3 wins in a regional 2 session pairs event. 3 wins in a 1 session or 2 session pairs event (aka regional or sectional, no side game). 1 overall placing in a national pairs event.

ACBL Pairs Champion: 10 wins in a regional 2 session pairs event. 10 wins in a 1 or 2 session pairs event (aka 1 session sectional is okay, side game at a regional is not). Top 15 (or 20?) overall placing in a national pairs event.

 

ACBL Teams Adept: 1 bracket 1 win, or lower bracket win if average team points is 10000+ (hi Gatlinburg), OR 1 Swiss teams win (A only, no BCD), OR 1 overall finish in any open national teams event. Maybe make this 1st/2nd for KO's Swiss?

ACBL Teams Master: 6 wins in bracket 1 (or 10000+ lower bracket) KO and/or Strat A Swiss teams. Also: 1 overall placing in any open national teams event.

ACBL Teams Champion: 20 wins in appropriate KO's/Swiss events. 1 top 10 finish in any open teams event (or round of 16 for Spingold/Vanderbilt).

 

Anyways, would love to see more depth added after Life Master at the very least. Atm it just seems silly, yay you attended enough tournaments, here is your attendance award. Lifemaster means something. Grand Life Master means something. It seems to the benefit of the ACBL (and to the excitement of people who are already life masters) to have more milestones in between so people have something to shoot for.

[han]

Does the Netherlands count women's events in the MP system? The two should definitely be seperate.

They do, hence some of the slightly surprising results.

[glen]

...However, after hitting the lifemaster rank.. there is nothing. There is this empty chasm of meaningless attendance based ranks, before the final rank of "Grand Life Master". A rank many will never be able to win the prerequisite title for.

 

I think it'd be really cool to see some more of the ranks actually have some milestones other than just an attendance check. Or add new ranks which are totally independent, but have harder to acquire requirements. ...

In 1998 I put forward this proposal to the ACBL:

Please consider this proposal or some version like it:

 

A) Do not change the Life Master requirements.

 

B ) Add a new status, which for this proposal will be called "Top Flight Master".

 

Top Flight Masters always play in Flight A (or unlimited events), and requirements for this status show the ability to handle the level of competition:

 

1) At least 1000 masterpoints,

2) At least 100 gold points,

3) At least 1 regional or national win in an unlimited field,

4) At least 3 Blue Ribbon qualifications having been obtained (may have been used).

 

Players who are Top Flight Masters obtain better seeding rights etc. than non Top Flight Masters.  Top Flight Masters are given an ACBL number that reflects their status (perhaps converting the second place digit to a letter, using 1=A, 2=B etc.).

 

C) Players who are not Top Flight Masters can continue to play in Flight B events no matter how many masterpoints they obtain.

 

Advantages of this proposal:

 

1) Establishes meaningful target for Life Masters to achieve next, thus promoting increased attendance at gold point tournaments.

 

2) Leaves the Life Master status as an obtainable goal for new or senior players.

 

3) Allows for Flight B players to continue to play Flight B no matter how many masterpoints have been gained via Bracketed KOs (in lower brackets), Flight B events, and club games.

Thanks to District 2 Director Jonathan Steinberg this was brought forward to the Board of Directors, and from his summer meeting report, we have:

 

"The plan to increase the requirements for Life Master was defeated; however, a sub-committee is looking into creating a new category for Life Masters who have significant achievements."

 

There was some further refinement of the idea.

 

From the Fall Board of Directors meeting report we have:

 

Appendix A

The following list represents new TITLES or LABELS, not new categories. The EXPERT label is an incentive for those players who recognize the challenge to achieve more than a simple accumulation of Masterpoints.

 

EXPERT LM

Life Master requirements including

100 Gold Points

1 Ribbon Qualification (Red, Silver or Blue)

1 Unrestricted Sectional Win (Top Bracket, Open, or Flight A)

 

EXPERT BRONZE LM

750 Masterpoints including

150 Gold Points

5 Platinum Points

3 Ribbon qualifications

1 Unrestricted Regional Win (if KO, must be a bracket that provides a Blue Ribbon Q)

 

EXPERT SILVER LM

1500 Masterpoints including

200 Gold Points

25 Platinum Points

5 Ribbon Qualifications (at least 2 must be Blue Ribbon)

 

EXPERT GOLD LM

3500 Masterpoints

250 Gold Points

50 Platinum Points

3 Unrestricted Regional Wins

 

EXPERT DIAMOND LM

7500 Masterpoints

500 Gold Points

150 Platinum Points

10 Blue Ribbon Qualifications

5 Unrestricted Regional Wins

See Orlando Report (Fall 98)

 

Subsequent to this the ACBL reported back to the Board of Directors that, even though this was approved, it would be too hard to implement, so it was dropped. I was not happy.

[geller]

Here in Japan we have two "ranking systems." The first is basically similar to the ACBL MP system. The second is called "seeding points" (SP).

 

Your SP is 5% of your career MP total (truncated at 3000, regardless of how many MP you have) plus 50% of the number of MP you won in the last year (updated monthly on a rolling basis). All flighting is done by SP, rather than by MP. This basically achieves reasonable (albeit not perfect) flighting. In particular formerly high-ranking players who have gotten old/rusty are automatically flighted down without their losing their lifetime MP or having their feelings hurt.

 

The SP system in Japan would work OK in the US with some adjustment of the numbers in the formula.

 

-Bob

 

P.S. Let me add an example. Take a player with 10,000 career MP who won 600 MP in the last tweve months. (Both rank around 10th in Japan out of 7000+ JCBL members.) This player's SP would be 0.05*3000 + 0.5*600 = 150 + 300 = 450. (Note that the factor of 0.05 is 3000, i.e. the upper cutoff, rather than 10,000, the player's career total. This is necessary to keep the career totals from dominating the SP calculation. At this time a player with a career total of 3000 MP would be ranked 100th or so out of 7000+ JCBL members.)

[TimG]

1) At least 1000 masterpoints,

2) At least 100 gold points,

3) At least 1 regional or national win in an unlimited field,

4) At least 3 Blue Ribbon qualifications having been obtained (may have been used).

 

EXPERT BRONZE LM

750 Masterpoints including

150 Gold Points

5 Platinum Points

3 Ribbon qualifications

1 Unrestricted Regional Win (if KO, must be a bracket that provides a Blue Ribbon Q)

Not all unlimited regional wins are created equal -- the size and strength of the field can vary greatly from event to event even at a single regional.

 

I think a meaningful change has to take into account strength of field. (And, not strength of field as measured by current metrics such as masterpoints.)

 

The ACBL addition of a platinum point requirement repeats past errors by adding an attendance requirement to the equation. Just like silver, red and gold points, average players will accumulate modest amounts of platinum points if they play in events that offer platinum points.

[Vilgan]

The ACBL addition of a platinum point requirement repeats past errors by adding an attendance requirement to the equation. Just like silver, red and gold points, average players will accumulate modest amounts of platinum points if they play in events that offer platinum points.

I disagree. Remove the platinum match award from the open swiss, and winning platinum shows actual success at a real level instead of just getting the attendance handouts at regional KO/pair events. I played 4 sessions of blue ribbon pairs in Hawaii and got 0 platinum for it because I never did anything special the whole time. Even at a small regional, getting ~40 points is fairly trivial playing 1-2 sessions a day.

 

It would probably also be good for the ACBL from a marketing perspective, as it would increase the draw of a national and thus the revenue involved. The top players might not like the influx it would cause in the national events. However, it would be a good experience for all the regular people to get out and play in the open events and actually see the people whose books they read.

[TimG]

The ACBL addition of a platinum point requirement repeats past errors by adding an attendance requirement to the equation.  Just like silver, red and gold points, average players will accumulate modest amounts of platinum points if they play in events that offer platinum points.

I disagree. Remove the platinum match award from the open swiss, and winning platinum shows actual success at a real level instead of just getting the attendance handouts at regional KO/pair events.

You'd have to eliminate platinum point section awards in pair events, too. I've got a few platinum points and have never sniffed at an overall award in a open national event. As they are currently awarded, they can be accumulated through attendance.

[jdonn]

The ACBL addition of a platinum point requirement repeats past errors by adding an attendance requirement to the equation.  Just like silver, red and gold points, average players will accumulate modest amounts of platinum points if they play in events that offer platinum points.

I disagree. Remove the platinum match award from the open swiss, and winning platinum shows actual success at a real level instead of just getting the attendance handouts at regional KO/pair events.

You'd have to eliminate platinum point section awards in pair events, too. I've got a few platinum points and have never sniffed at an overall award in a open national event. As they are currently awarded, they can be accumulated through attendance.

"Accumulated" is an overbid. I think it would take you 30 or 40 years of tiny bits and pieces from national pairs and swisses, if you are of less than expert level, to get as much as winning one major national event.

[Vilgan]

You'd have to eliminate platinum point section awards in pair events, too. I've got a few platinum points and have never sniffed at an overall award in a open national event. As they are currently awarded, they can be accumulated through attendance.

So you had actual success at a national event, and earned some platinum. This seems okay to me. If you had to get 5 platinum for the "Expert Bronze Life Master" as described a few posts ago, would you feel motivated to keep entering national events? I think so. It would provide something to shoot for and be motivated to acquire.

 

Acquiring the 150 platinum for "Expert Diamond Life Master" as described, would NOT be easy. Could it be done by nickel and diming section scratches? Absolutely. However, it is still something that is commendable and it is a goal to work for that is HARD but MUCH MORE attainable than a national title. If someone told me they were an Expert Diamond Life Master, that would be impressive to me. Not as impressive as Grand Life Master, but a hell of a lot more impressive than accumulating 10000 masterpoints with no other requirements.

 

The Japanese system of seeding sounds like a nice improvement. Would be awesome to see their seeding along with the expert ranks described previously added to the system. Would it take more effort to implement and track? Absolutely. However, the added retention and attendance at tournaments would be worth the extra effort imo.

[Guest Jlall]

Just wanted to add that I think platinum points are a much better measure of skill than blue ribbon Qs, and they're way harder to get.

 

For some reference, I have about 85 blue ribbon Qs and about 1150 platinum points, and I consider myself someone with reasonable success at nationals.

 

To me this just means that blue ribbon Qs are very diluted now as well, but platinum points are still tough to get and should be used in some of the higher ranking levels.

 

But I mean really I agree with the 2 system format, one that is like chess rankings (that takes strength of field etc) or batting average for masterpoints or whatever, and one that is just regular masterpoints. Even the WBF has a 2 system format where one is like career points and one is points that decay over time. I like that as well, but the ACBL would need to add in a strength of field component too (which the WBF doesn't really need since their events are all world level).

[Vilgan]

Subsequent to this the ACBL reported back to the Board of Directors that, even though this was approved, it would be too hard to implement, so it was dropped. I was not happy.

Do you happen to remember what was too hard about it? The logistics of implementing for the future seem trivial. It seems like parsing old tournament results to implement this retroactively is a bit harder, but also fairly trivial. I realize the ACBL has a lack of programmers who know wtf they are doing (Windows based ACBLScore anyone?) but this is stuff that any programmer straight out of college with basic database experience ought to be able to handle.

 

There is a bit of difficulty if the ACBL wanted to include the new ranks in things like the Mini Mckenney, In and Out reports, etc. But that does not seem necessary. If implemented as a stand alone "achievement" type setup that players get cards/recognition for but don't blend into the other existing aspects of the ACBL, this seems like an easy change to make.

[awm]

I don't think "unrestricted regional wins" are actually recorded anywhere as things stand. At some point I noticed people advertising how many "regional wins" they had and wanted to look myself up for comparison (no I do not keep track) and there was no real way to do it. So perhaps this particular qualification would be hard to set up retroactively. And there is also the fact that people actually use their ribbon quals, so presumably people have "earned" a few more than they currently "have" (and I'm not sure the ACBL records anything but the current number available). But the ACBL web page records platinum points (and they don't decline over time) so I don't really see what the issue would be about using them for title requirements.